OOH, AAH, ALPHA BETA: In his 2009 keynote remarks to the Radio and TV Correspondents Dinner last night, "very famous minor television personality" John Hodgman asks the President whether he is a jock, a nerd, or He Who Shall End The Shameful Division Between The Two. (Contains mild political content, which I know our comments will avoid.)

NEED A NEW LIVER? Apparently, there's an app for that too.

Feel free to taunt me for my lack of an iPhone, or whatever else is worth discussing in the Apple universe.

GARY PAPA (1954-2009): Those of us in the Delaware Valley are a bit misty tonight after learning that prostate cancer took the life of Channel 6 sports anchor Gary Papa today at the age of 54. Papa had battled cancer for the past five years, unafraid to broadcast with his newly-bald head, and fundraised like hell to fight cancer with all the time he had left, including an annual 5K run/walk which will be held on Father's Day as always.

Enthusiastic, knowledgeable, charismatic, and one of the rare transplants to our city (1981) who was beloved like a native. The role of a local sports anchor isn't what it was in the pre-ESPN era, but after a big event like a Monday night Eagles game or the Phillies victory parade, it's still the locals you want to see, and it was to his Action News team to which I and this city turned. The Channel 6 site has catalogued a ton of archived Papa video and tributes today.

WHAT DO YOU STAND FOR, DANNY, GOODNESS OR BADNESS? Tad Friend profiled writer/actor/director Harold Ramis in 2004; the AV Club caught up with him today to discuss Year One, Ghostbusters 3 and the oddness of Bill Murray.

To borrow a phrasing we've used here before -- had he only co-written and directed Groundhog Day, dayenu. Add to that writing or co-writing Animal House, Meatballs, Caddyshack, Stripes ...

CATPANTS: I have no problem with my SYTYCD predictions being mostly wrong, especially at this stage of the game. My general wrongness, combined with the fact that exactly zero of last week's bottom three couples showed up again in this week's bottom three, shows how wide open the field is this season. Not a lot of chaff in this bottom six, and I was sad to see the departers depart, although I thought each one was the right call. The good news is that we're getting ourselves a brand new couple next week. I love seeing how changing partners impacts the quality of the dancing, and I think this new partnership has the potential to be really interesting in a way that neither of its predecessors really was. (There's an obvious analogy, but I'll save it for the comments so as not to annoy Isaac and his fellow West Coasties.)

NO, IT'S NOT DIABLO CODY: As it turns out, there's a reader of this site who works for Entertainment Weekly, and who I think would read any suggestions you had for the magazine. What I've told this reader is that I think EW needs to seize upon its ability to be smarter than the People/Us universe, to let folks like Mark Harris and Doc Jensen do long-form think pieces on popular culture more often to balance off the traditional "hey! it's a new movie! we visited the set!" pieces to which covers are often pegged. I like it when EW lets movie stars talk about a series of past roles, its oral histories about the making of a film or creation of a tv show, and the great features they've done about forgotten performers or obscure films. If there's a two-word slogan for what I'm thinking, it's "smart populism."

THE KAYFABE DEFENSE: For your first question in the ALOTT5MA Securities Regulation Final Exam, please discuss the following fact pattern (all real). On Monday night's live television broadcast of its RAW program, World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) announces that it has sold its "RAW" brand to Donald Trump. WWE issues a press release the following day announcing the deal, and multiple media sources pick up the story. WWE's stock drops almost 10% that day. WWE subsequently clarifies that the press release was merely "promotional for that ongoing story arc." Let's assume that there was no active wrongdoing by WWE employees in shorting the stock or otherwise. Is "everyone knows wrestling is fake" a valid legal defense to any securities claims that might be asserted by the SEC or a class action? Should it be?